Red Sins, Black Sins

The Angels usually only feed me hints, and then allow me to think things through. But regarding Red Sin, Black Sin they actually dragged out the Chalk Board and Pointers. It was something I was supposed to understand on their terms.

Red Sins are shortcomings of the Body, Carnality and the Impulses of Emotions – Sins of the Blood. The Lusts, Appetites, Angers and Jealousies of the moment. These Sins, being so much of the Body, hardly stain the Soul.

Black Sins are the Intentional Evils – the corruptions, the thefts, the rapes, the exploitations – all those things of the Republican Platform. These are sins of the Soul.

At Death, the Soul soon wriggles out of the Soil of the Red Sins. A short stay in Purgatory soon has one spotless of any trace of Red Sin. But the Black Sins hold onto the Soul like a canker or a rot. By inflicting intentional harm upon others, one makes damaged goods of one’s own Soul. Hell is the abode for those claimed by the Black Sins.

Can there be Redemption for those Stained with Black Sin? The Angels did not tell me of any. Would we even want a Hitler in Heaven? The Church teaches of Regret, Repentance, Penance and Atonement. I would suppose that there is hope for whoever experiences real and intense Shame. It makes me wonder whether the Pain of Intense Shame is not the shedding of that damaged portion of the Soul that had been infected of the Black Sin.

deleted...............

[deleted]

As a child I read the Bible repeatedly. As I found no Holy Spirit in the Protestant Church's, and was then too Brainwashed to turn to the Catholics, it took up the Study of Oriental Religion. I became a Master of Yoga. Lived at an Ashram for awhile. Visited Sufi Camps and Buddhist Monasteries on a regular basis. Travelled to India and the Far East. When I came to Catholicism, then I returned to Europe and sought out Wisdom of the Contemplative Orders, and visited all the Really Neat Shrines.

If one makes Religious Vision a priority in ones Life, then, apparently, one is more predisposed to have Religious Vision.

Have you ever seen a shrink?

Have you ever seen a shrink?

Sure.

Between my Oriental Phase and my Catholic Phase I took up Atheism for awhile and became depressed by it and went to see a Psychologist.

It was while seeing him that I became a Catholic, and so he was very interested in those Dynamics.

He was fascinated by my Dreams, and used them whereby to measure the success of his own Psychological Models to discern their Meanings and Intents. He showed me a Paper he was having published on First, Second and Third Order Personality Dynamics. It was all rather interesting and I still find that such thinking does offer a realistic model for understanding personalities and behaviors.

Did he see some huge harm in my becoming Religious again? Actually not. Whatever his personal beliefs are, he realized that his actually success on the Job would be measured by whether or not my Depression ever subsided. Becoming Catholic took away the Depression. It would have been quite silly for the Doctor to stand in the Way of the Cure, no? And he did not. He is a good man... a bit downtrodden by Life... but basically a decent fellow.

If one makes Religious Vision a priority in ones Life, then, apparently, one is more predisposed to have Religious Vision.

Most of the world calls it imagination.

*************
M*W: Now the truth comes out! Just as I suspected.

Most of the world calls it imagination.

Imagination is mostly creative. Good 'creative' writers are said to have good 'imaginations'. They scratch their heads and think up new and interesting combinations of possibilities. We could say that it would take a lot of imagination to come up with a truly orginal Screenplay after a hundred years of Hollywood reheating the same old crockpot of Crap, but we would not necessarily intend by this that somebody would need to have a Vision.

Yes, there probably is some line somewhere which barely separates Creativity from Inspiration. But Creativity is forced and from the Ego. Inspiration comes from outside the Ego -- from a Higher Self or from a Subconscious Mind or a Super Conscious mind.

So, Imagination may be too broad a term if it does not distinguish between Sources. Imagination may be connected to the Springs of Inspiration, but in most cases it is pushed by the Ego in an effort to Create. A Vision, on the otherhand, arises entirely independently of the Ego and appears to come from The Great Other -- it appears to arise up by itself unmixed with any conscious mental manipulations. In this sense a Vision becomes Objective. When a person describes a Vision, there is no creativity of imagination allowed. There is only 'what the visionary actually saw' Was the Blessed Virgins dress Red or Blue? There is no choice involved. The Details of a Vision are fixed and inexorible. Such is not the case with mere imaginations.

He was fascinated by my Dreams, and used them whereby to measure the success of his own Psychological Models to discern their Meanings and Intents. He showed me a Paper he was having published on First, Second and Third Order Personality Dynamics. It was all rather interesting and I still find that such thinking does offer a realistic model for understanding personalities and behaviors.

Leo, you astound me. He probably showed you his papers to aid in his trying to treat you. Maybe in the hope that you would identify yourself. The fact that he was fascinated by your dreams shows that he was in fact trying to help you. He probably realised that he wasn't just treating your depression anymore and he was probably rubbing his hands with glee at the thought of all the new papers he could write just by treating you, not to mention the fact he could now probably afford that new Jag and heated swimming pool.

Did he see some huge harm in my becoming Religious again? Actually not. Whatever his personal beliefs are, he realized that his actually success on the Job would be measured by whether or not my Depression ever subsided. Becoming Catholic took away the Depression. It would have been quite silly for the Doctor to stand in the Way of the Cure, no? And he did not. He is a good man... a bit downtrodden by Life... but basically a decent fellow.
Becoming a Catholic may have taken away your depression Leo, but maybe it did not take away the other things that he may have been trying to help you with. Of course he wouldn't have stood in the way of you becoming a Catholic. Why should he? You appear to have found happiness there. But it's the other things that he may have been trying to help you with.
I mean, colour coded sins? Come on Leo...

Leo, you astound me. He probably showed you his papers to aid in his trying to treat you. Maybe in the hope that you would identify yourself. The fact that he was fascinated by your dreams shows that he was in fact trying to help you. He probably realised that he wasn't just treating your depression anymore and he was probably rubbing his hands with glee at the thought of all the new papers he could write just by treating you, not to mention the fact he could now probably afford that new Jag and heated swimming pool.


Becoming a Catholic may have taken away your depression Leo, but maybe it did not take away the other things that he may have been trying to help you with. Of course he wouldn't have stood in the way of you becoming a Catholic. Why should he? You appear to have found happiness there. But it's the other things that he may have been trying to help you with.
I mean, colour coded sins? Come on Leo...

Yes, Belles, you know about it because you weren't there. Is that the way it is for you? The fewer facts to bog you down, the more you Know about things.

No, actually knowing what happened is very restricting. It was my impression, from actually being there, that the Doctor saw me as a relief from his usual clientel. I had an advanced Education, was very well read, and was well travelled with a wealth of Personal Spiritual Experiences. Now, every Psychologist must be intrigued by the Similarity between many Psychological Contents, and the Contents of Religious Experience. I offered this Doctor a Synthesis. But you think that he would see this Source of Knowledge as a disease to be cured. But as I said before, not being there, you can be very much Liberated from the Truth.

The fewer facts to bog you down, the more you Know about things.

And here I was thinking ignorance is bliss..

And here I was thinking ignorance is bliss..

Yes, that does express the same notion, does it not?... or maybe not quite. I believe the "ignorance is bliss" idea comes out of the mileau of Domestic Intrigues. That Husband and Wives are blissful as long as they remain ignorant of each other's various dalliances. I do not believe that "ignorance is bliss" has ever SERIOUSLY been applied to the Speculative Philosophies, but only in jest.

Sure.

Between my Oriental Phase and my Catholic Phase I took up Atheism for awhile and became depressed by it and went to see a Psychologist.
a bit downtrodden by Life... but basically a decent fellow.

took up atheism:LMAO, biggest load of bullshit ever, in the entire history of the universe(another dream/vision leo).

what a burden, to put on a doctor's shoulder's no wonder he feel's downtrodden, to have you on his book's.
I feel so sorry for the man having to keep his mouthshut, while there's a psychopath roaming round.

took up atheism:LMAO, biggest load of bullshit ever, in the entire history of the universe(another dream/vision leo).

what a burden, to put on a doctor's shoulder's no wonder he feel's downtrodden, to have you on his book's.
I feel so sorry for the man having to keep his mouthshut, while there's a psychopath roaming round.

C'mon fahrenheit 451,

There's no reason to bag on this. If we think about it, it makes sense that
a person whom does not 'believe' may become depressed. Throughout
history, we have been a species of believers. Those whom did not believe
were punished (alot of the time with their very lives). This effectively creates
an environmental pressure and those who could adapt would be the survivors,
procreate, and so on. We're currently left with an overall population whom is
bred with a pre-dispotition to accept assertions as truth without considering
the existance of supporting and / or contradictory fact.

With tens of thousands of years of genetic behavior influencing one
to 'believe', it may be difficult for someone to take a non-belief standpoint,
especially in a social environment where that lack of belief alienates
the individual from those in his environment.

In Leo's case, I suspect that he has a strong genetic disposition to 'believe'.
Additionally, Leo is an extravert and not 'believing' in his environment would
probably limit satisfying social interaction with others. One of the worst
things for an extravert is limited or no social contact with others. The
need to socialize builds up and demands release. Without that release,
it would be easy to become depressed about it. A great example of this
extraverted need is Saddam Hussein. He was in a hole without social
contact for who knows how long. When he was caught, he was described
as being bubbly, over-talkative, and a little goofy. That was simply the
release of the buildup.

and why should this be, for Leo is a Narcissist/psychopath.
read The Mask of Sanity by Cleckley and or the Socially Adept Psychopath by Robert Canup or any thing about narcissist's/psychopath's it's enlightening.

and why should this be, for Leo is a Narcissist/psychopath.
read The Mask of Sanity by Cleckley and or the Socially Adept Psychopath by Robert Canup or any thing about narcissist's/psychopath's it's enlightening.

I pointed this same fact out in another thread; however, I see a benefit
of repeating it here. Leo has exhibited some behavioral problems when he
first started communicating on SciForums; however, he has improved since
then. Granted, he still says some odd and sometimes insulting things from
time to time; however, these occurances have still been reduced.

I have not tested to see if Leo is a Sociopath. I am not confident that
type of conclusion could be made solely from online communication.

www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Sociopath.
you may find this link, interesting crunchy cat.
have a read, or try reading some of the stuff, musta quoted.
I did.
or you could try this link.
http://groups.msn.com/PSYCHOPATH/characteristicsofapsychopath.msnw

Leo,

When a person describes a Vision, there is no creativity of imagination allowed. There is only 'what the visionary actually saw' Was the Blessed Virgins dress Red or Blue? There is no choice involved. The Details of a Vision are fixed and inexorible. Such is not the case with mere imaginations.

Yes I agree to a large extent. However, the images you credit to external supernatural sources are more likely generated by your own brain as science is beginning to discover. The area in the brain concerned with this function has been dubbed “the god spot” since it is closely related to religious like visions. Note that those who suffer from occasional epileptic fits often relate religious like experiences during their seizures (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE)). More in depth studies of this phenomenon are beginning to locate the exact area of the brain that generates these images and sensations.

Some references to neurotheology and similar studies.

In Neurons We Trust (http://www.corante.com/brainwaves/archives/002344.html)

How the brain creates the experience of God (http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/god.htm)

HOLY VISIONS:MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE OR BRAIN MALFUNCTION? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/vis_brain.htm)

A Student Essay on The Material Nature of Spirituality (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/ekanayake.html)

So while I am sure your “visions” feel extremely real to you they do appear to be generated by your brain in accord with your cultural heritage and beliefs. Others from different religious cultures also experience such visions but these are also constrained by their particular beliefs. Mohammed was a prime example and was well known to have periodic severe epileptic fits.

Sorry my friend but your “visions” are almost certainly entirely of your own making, and that really does make sense given the incredulity of believing that mythical creatures like gods and angels might actually be real. Such things simply do not exist, except in the minds of people since it was people who invented the ideas.

Leo,



Yes I agree to a large extent. However, the images you credit to external supernatural sources are more likely generated by your own brain as science is beginning to discover. The area in the brain concerned with this function has been dubbed “the god spot” since it is closely related to religious like visions.

It does not lessen the Importance of Visions that they are out of our own Brains. We are connected to the Universe, mostly through our Spiritual Heart, but where anything can rise up to the Quality of a Perception, yes, the Brain will be involved.

There is a concept called "Integration". Most people are puzzled and confused. Perhaps these Visions, from the Brain, is the Brain's effort to assert Experiences which might bring some Integration to the Ego Personality.


Also, I wonder that you can draw a strict dividing line between one brain and another. I know that some people can share common dreams -- I once shared a rather complex Dream with a lady friend of mine. Common Dreams indicates that there may be a Common Influence.

Of course, as a Religious Person, I suppose an entire Hierarchy of Spiritual Influences, going up the 9 Ranks of Angels to God Itself. But that is difficult to demonstrate without a great deal of anecdotal evidence. But for now let us understand that there is Knowledge that the Brain has independent of ordinary sensual perceptions. We can assume there is a Psychic Sense. The most easy proof of this is to watch somebody. They will turn around to see who is watching them and why. No, it doesn't work on strange good looking women if you are a nerd -- they are so used to being watched that they quite consciously ignore it, and only respond if they feel that your vibes are interesting. But your friends will always acknowledge you and turn around. And your enemies.

if your having hallucinations, I would stay of the LSD, it makes you do and say strange things.
and dont burn any of those, josh sticks, they dont help either.
"you will get labeled a nutter, if your not carefull ."

if your having hallucinations, I would stay of the LSD, it makes you do and say strange things.
and dont burn any of those, josh sticks, they dont help either.
"your get labeled a nutter, if your not carefull ."


"Sticks and Stones can break my Bones,
But Names will never Hurt me."

C'mon fahrenheit 451,

With tens of thousands of years of genetic behavior influencing one
to 'believe', it may be difficult for someone to take a non-belief standpoint,
especially in a social environment where that lack of belief alienates
the individual from those in his environment.

In Leo's case, I suspect that he has a strong genetic disposition to 'believe'.
Additionally, Leo is an extravert and not 'believing' in his environment would
probably limit satisfying social interaction with others.

Dear Crunchy,

Nice little perceptive essay! It comes with a skeptics coloring, but the forms and substances depicted show signs of an open eye.

But where you use the term 'believe' as though it indicates credulous acceptance, I would argue that it provided a receptivity to an actual reality.

In todays largely Atheistic and de-mystified World (is not the Protestant Establishment as spiritually barren as the worst Atheist -- they do not speak of Miracles or Saints either, you know), the Ardent Catholic still becomes acquainted with first hand and anecdotal Proofs of Divine Providence and Our Lady's Intercessions. Now if you were to wind back the Clock to a Time when Civilization was Monolithically Catholic (during the Life of Saint Bernard I think there were as many as six Major First Magnitude Saints all alive simultaneously) certainly there were many 'Believers', but they would not have had to have been in the least wise 'credulous'. The Objects of their Beliefs were ever before their eyes.

But I am flattered for you to say that I seem to have the Genetic Predisposition. It might have skipped a generation or two, however. Perhaps I am the Prodigal Son of my Family Line, returning to the Bosum of the Church. In studying the Saints, it is remarkable that Saints largely come from Saintly Families. The Protestant Supposition that the most ardent 'Believers' come from the Worst Sinners may be true as regards Protestants who lean largely on Forgiveness; but the Catholics seem to require Generations of Practice in Righteousness before there arrives the Fruit of Sainthood.

I have not tested to see if Leo is a Sociopath. I am not confident that
type of conclusion could be made solely from online communication.



I sing in the Choir. How many Sociopaths do you know who spend their tuesday evenings at Choir Practice, with a crowd of clucking little old ladies? I'm sure a hardcore Sociopath would think such an activity as absolute torture, But I do well enough with it.

I also volunteer to work socializing Cat and Kittens at a local Vetenary Hospital, where I must interact with the Doctors and the Vetenary Technicians and Reception Clerks. If I were a Sociopath, wouldn't you think they would have chased me away by now?

Then there is the matter of my holding down a job. Do Sociopaths have much luck with Employments? If you think I might be lying about having a Job, then simply refer to my schedule of Posts -- am I not largely absent from Monday through Friday each day for 10 or 12 hours at a time. If I was a Loner Sociopath, certainly I would be haunting this Forum ALL the time.

But, then again, I can't say that I have studied Sociopathology and so I cannot be sure of any of these suppositions. But, here again, if I were a Sociopath, you would suspect that I would know more about it. But in all my interactions with the World of Psychological Therapeutics, the word has never come up.

"Sticks and Stones can break my Bones,
But Names will never Hurt me."
Is this not a little childish.
I thought this was the intelligent community.
clearly not in your case.

In todays largely Atheistic and de-mystified World (is not the Protestant Establishment as spiritually barren as the worst Atheist -- they do not speak of Miracles or Saints either, you know), the Ardent Catholic still becomes acquainted with first hand and anecdotal Proofs of Divine Providence and Our Lady's Intercessions. Now if you were to wind back the Clock to a Time when Civilization was Monolithically Catholic (during the Life of Saint Bernard I think there were as many as six Major First Magnitude Saints all alive simultaneously) certainly there were many 'Believers', but they would not have had to have been in the least wise 'credulous'. The Objects of their Beliefs were ever before their eyes.
because leo we have more sense.

There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.

Humanity's first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt.
Any belief worth having must survive doubt.

Leo,

Christianity ruled the world in the past because the past had little knowledge of reality. Under religion the world was ignorant and deliberately kept ignorant by religion. It has taken science to begin the enlightnement of the world and to begin the inevitable decline of institutions based on ignorance and superstitions like Catholicism.

Fortunately the human thirst for knowledge and freedom from repression is insatiable - the realm of religious influence can now only be shortlived. The death of religion cannot come soon enough, and especially the abomination known as Catholicism.

There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.



You must be an American. I hear that the schools there teach American History -- a few hundred years of virtual insignificance -- while never bothering to teach any World History.

The Dark Ages was a period between Civilizations. The Roman Civilization had collapsed, while Catholic Civilization had not yet risen over the forces Domestic Barbarism and of Foreign Barbarian Invasion. But, Catholicism DID eventually exert its Influence, and then History recognizes this Development by naming these subsequent Periods as THE MIDDLE AGES, and the HIGH MIDDLE AGES.

But, yes, to many ignorant Americans, they suppose that History consists of Ancient Greece and Rome, then the Dark Ages, and then the American Revolution. One cannot really argue with such ignorance, but maybe we can educate it.

Leo,

Christianity ruled the world in the past because the past had little knowledge of reality. Under religion the world was ignorant and deliberately kept ignorant by religion. It has taken science to begin the enlightnement of the world and to begin the inevitable decline of institutions based on ignorance and superstitions like Catholicism.

Fortunately the human thirst for knowledge and freedom from repression is insatiable - the realm of religious influence can now only be shortlived. The death of religion cannot come soon enough, and especially the abomination known as Catholicism.

Read Toynbee's "Study of History". Your sermon sounds well enough, but it is typically the last Doctrine taught by every dying Civilization. Civilizations rise on Religion and Fall on Skepticism.

It is not that Knowledge is harmful of itself. But when the Institutions of Knowledge attack the Religious Foundations of Morality as Ultimately Uncertain -- that is where the damage is done.

You see, material Knowledge cannot justify and validate any Moral Code. Materialism at best can propose various Aesthetic Codes -- What Sounds Good and What Looks Good. But individuals, once liberated from Religious Codes, will simply laugh at any attempt to obstruct their Ambitions and Rapacities with merely Aesthetic Suggestions.